As we look at the raging discussions and flame war over ballot measure 4-123 we see that a quick review of what we learned in high school about debating is desperately needed. Being on the rather lazy side tonight I think a quick visit over to wiki is in order. A cut and paste job should do for a refresher course.
A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole. In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.
Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several categories, depending on the source of the fallacy. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies involving causal reasoning, and fallacies resulting from ambiguities.
In philosophy, a formal fallacy or a logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form, but be false due to the characteristics of its premises.
Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. Fallacies may also exploit the emotional or intellectual weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments reduces the likelihood of such an occurrence.
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.
This, dear reader, is where we are at with our friend District Attorney Marquis, and his justification for wanting Ballot Measure 4-123 to succeed. District Attorney Marquis rightly claims that a district attorney needs to be independent from petty politics. District Attorney Marquis correctly asserts that a district attorney is not answerable to county commissioners. District Attorney Marquis justifiably evokes that he will never give special treatment to anyone in a position of power. District Attorney Marquis solemnly promises to never allow his state office to be dictated to by anyone and to treat rich or poor, high or low, equitably.
The problem with his argument is that it doesn’t address any current issue. The Board of County Commissioners against whom he is ranting has never attacked his office. District Attorney Marquis has not been asked nor cajoled to give them special favors nor threatened regarding the prosecution of relatives or friends. He hasn’t been verbally assaulted nor publicly chastised for prosecuting a case by any one of the commissioners nor has he been asked nor told to leave any group alone or to stop prosecuting any types of crimes.
District Attorney Marquis has built a fallacious argument so that the public will be diverted from the truth. In order to do this he does have to have the help of powerful friends in the media and in the government, ala Joseph McCarthy. Does he? Who were the first to rush to his defense? His best friend, the media, where he knows how to milk a sensational non-story for all its worth. His next group of friends in legislature. Too bad they weren’t so good that they could have passed his bill through on the state level but since he had scratched their backs quite vigorously they were reminded of their mutual obligation, scratched back and passed the buck.
District Attorney Marquis never proved his first and main argument. His office was never attacked, he was never asked by the Board of County Commissioners to treat them specially, nor was it intimated to let a friend off. Plainly and simply he was asked to do performance based budgeting and he bristled that a bunch of country hicks implied that he owed them something in return for the stipend they paid him.
While the Board of County Commissioners certainly could (and probably did) do that, they didn’t have to waste time looking for information in the other county departments and they shouldn’t have to. The commissioners are paid $800 a month to be administrators not babysitters. When they ask for a specific job to be done either it should be done or they should have the right to hire the person who will do it. The BOCC cannot fire a district attorney, but they do not have to pay for services our county is not receiving. The voters of Clatsop County should not be duped by a red herring argument and should demand proof of any alleged nefarious behavior of the sitting commissioners. Subsequently, they should throw out that argument completely, and look at the measure as it is stated.
The measure calls for a state employee to be compensated by the county’s dollars whenever that state employee’s salary is not the same as another state employee’s. Local duties, services or responsibilities are not tied to the new salary. This pay is solely to make up the difference between what the state says a district attorney is worth and what an individual says a district attorney is worth. That is it. Legally, the measure means nothing more and just as few can remember how Marquis got two members of his staff four years ago, three years from now this Ballot Measure will be a vague memory and few will remember why it is we are stuck paying a state employee a set salary that is higher than his own boss, the Attorney General’s.
Honesty from District Attorney Marquis, in admitting to throwing a red herring to the very voters who will be deciding on this issue, is as rare as, well, as rare as human rabies.
A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole. In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.
Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several categories, depending on the source of the fallacy. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies involving causal reasoning, and fallacies resulting from ambiguities.
In philosophy, a formal fallacy or a logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form, but be false due to the characteristics of its premises.
Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. Fallacies may also exploit the emotional or intellectual weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments reduces the likelihood of such an occurrence.
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.
This, dear reader, is where we are at with our friend District Attorney Marquis, and his justification for wanting Ballot Measure 4-123 to succeed. District Attorney Marquis rightly claims that a district attorney needs to be independent from petty politics. District Attorney Marquis correctly asserts that a district attorney is not answerable to county commissioners. District Attorney Marquis justifiably evokes that he will never give special treatment to anyone in a position of power. District Attorney Marquis solemnly promises to never allow his state office to be dictated to by anyone and to treat rich or poor, high or low, equitably.
The problem with his argument is that it doesn’t address any current issue. The Board of County Commissioners against whom he is ranting has never attacked his office. District Attorney Marquis has not been asked nor cajoled to give them special favors nor threatened regarding the prosecution of relatives or friends. He hasn’t been verbally assaulted nor publicly chastised for prosecuting a case by any one of the commissioners nor has he been asked nor told to leave any group alone or to stop prosecuting any types of crimes.
District Attorney Marquis has built a fallacious argument so that the public will be diverted from the truth. In order to do this he does have to have the help of powerful friends in the media and in the government, ala Joseph McCarthy. Does he? Who were the first to rush to his defense? His best friend, the media, where he knows how to milk a sensational non-story for all its worth. His next group of friends in legislature. Too bad they weren’t so good that they could have passed his bill through on the state level but since he had scratched their backs quite vigorously they were reminded of their mutual obligation, scratched back and passed the buck.
District Attorney Marquis never proved his first and main argument. His office was never attacked, he was never asked by the Board of County Commissioners to treat them specially, nor was it intimated to let a friend off. Plainly and simply he was asked to do performance based budgeting and he bristled that a bunch of country hicks implied that he owed them something in return for the stipend they paid him.
While the Board of County Commissioners certainly could (and probably did) do that, they didn’t have to waste time looking for information in the other county departments and they shouldn’t have to. The commissioners are paid $800 a month to be administrators not babysitters. When they ask for a specific job to be done either it should be done or they should have the right to hire the person who will do it. The BOCC cannot fire a district attorney, but they do not have to pay for services our county is not receiving. The voters of Clatsop County should not be duped by a red herring argument and should demand proof of any alleged nefarious behavior of the sitting commissioners. Subsequently, they should throw out that argument completely, and look at the measure as it is stated.
The measure calls for a state employee to be compensated by the county’s dollars whenever that state employee’s salary is not the same as another state employee’s. Local duties, services or responsibilities are not tied to the new salary. This pay is solely to make up the difference between what the state says a district attorney is worth and what an individual says a district attorney is worth. That is it. Legally, the measure means nothing more and just as few can remember how Marquis got two members of his staff four years ago, three years from now this Ballot Measure will be a vague memory and few will remember why it is we are stuck paying a state employee a set salary that is higher than his own boss, the Attorney General’s.
Honesty from District Attorney Marquis, in admitting to throwing a red herring to the very voters who will be deciding on this issue, is as rare as, well, as rare as human rabies.
5 comments:
It's a sad day in clatsop county when I read the truth and find 0 comments at the bottom. Let's throw some money in a pot buy some radio ads to attract some new people to these local sites. Your doing a good job, but is the message getting out.
Very good writing with the complete truth.
If the paper would print the other side of the story, just think how helpful it would be. My neighbors are very suspicious what is being said (all good)about Marquis, hopefully everyone is smart enough to know a paper should print both sides.
I forget I can make comments. Good points here. Much better editorials here than at the paper. Keep it up and thank-you! How about an editorial on contributions and does it really matter who's giving what in a campaign?
The county is sending all of its employees to mandatory ethics training. Josh attended -- guess he wanted to go even though he's not a county employee. Well, I think he was sleeping when the instructor talked about how it is not only unethical but illegal to use your position for favors, such as pay. I wonder if anyone is filing an ethics complaint or a complaint with the state bar against Josh?
I thought DA's first oath was to uphold the constitution and the laws of Oregon. Wouldn't it be illegal to be the one drafting a law that would be illegal to implement?
Post a Comment